Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
Hey Terry, no matter how far down I scrolled on your last post, I couldn't find your usual PS. Did you forget? No one packs more into a PS than you Thanks, David, I don't know why I have that tendency. Maybe it's a reaction against inverted pyramid style. But I will try to be careful about being consistent with my PS's. Here's an excerpt from Chet Flippo's chapter in "Country: The Music and the Musicians." He was writing about the early 70s' Outlaw Revolution: After discussing why Nashville was losing track of its audiences, and not doing so well, Flippo writes: "During this time (the late 60s, early 70s) there were many factors that came to change country music drastically and forever. I would like to concentrate on one that was basically fostered by singers caught up in the Nashville Sound. There came to be a broad-based revolution spawned by the non-power brokers -- the writers and singers -- that was as much influenced by the Beatles as Bob Bylan, as much by the Vietnam War as by country star Johnny Cash... It was called the "Outlaw" movement, a glib publicity term, but it came to represent a genuine watershed in country music history. "It sprang from a back-alley rendezvous in Nashville between kindred spirits who liked to stay up late and carouse around town before getting down to business with some music. But it came to represent a real determination by a handful of artists to bring country music into line with the rest of the musical world -- artistically as well as financially. By the time it ran its course, the Outlaw movement had changed the face of country music forever. The producer as king -- that fuedal notion was shattered. Country artists gained control over their own record sessions, their own booking, their record production, everything else related to their careers, including the right to make their own mistakes..." This doesn't prove anything, vis a vis Nashville sound = good or bad. But I guess it does at least back up the notion that the Nashville sound was mainly a producer/label-driven thing, and listening in hindsight, that factor makes it harder for (me) to appreciate it, especially when it's hitched to street-level, gritty tunes whose lyrics demand atmospherics of a less sweet and "managed" sort. At least for me. Part of my problem is the chasm between 1) how much the lyrics of Streets of Baltimore and Detroit City and Five Hundred Miles from Home really grab me, give me goosebumps almost, put me in the place of that lonely warehouse or factory worker, a long way from home (me in L.A. in 1978-80), and then the 2) deliberate management of the sound, to make it appeal to as many people as possible at that time, which, in so doing, snaps its fingers and transports me away from that factory and that loneliness. It pisses me off. Though I'll confess, I need to move on. After arguing about this, I think I've copped a worse attitude about the Nashville Sound than I really need to have. -- Terry Smith ps You know, Vince Gill singing "Forever on My Mind" at the Grammy's, with full orchestral backing and the Vienna Boys Choir singing background (g) was the highlight of the show. Really. Oh, yeah, when Shania came on in her dominatrix get-up, I started hooting, and whining, and bitching, and my kids said something like, "Shut up, dad, you sound like some old grandmother complaining about Elvis." Of course, I beat them severely.
RE: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
A couple of things about the quoted Flippo passage, the first of which is that this: The producer as king -- that fuedal notion was shattered. Country artists gained control over their own record sessions, their own booking, their record production, everything else related to their careers, including the right to make their own mistakes..." is, I think most everyone would agree, sadly dated g. More to the point, though, is that when he says that the Outlaw thing ...came to represent a real determination by a handful of artists to bring country music into line with the rest of the musical world -- artistically as well as financially. what that meant from a musical point of view was, among other things, the incorporation of rock and rock-related influences into the music. That's the irony of trying to frame Jennings et.al. as conservators of "real" country music. In the terms Flippo's talking about, Shania Twain is a direct descendant of sorts from the Outlaws, struggling with the powers-that-be at her label in order to make the kind of record *she* wanted to (with Any Man Of Mine), incorporating contemporaneous extra-country sounds and attitudes - which is a notion I don't have much trouble with, actually, but I suspect others might g. Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
A few points: Believe it or not, but I never laid down a blanket rejection of "heavy arrangements" -- strings, singers, etc. At least not this year g. What I was saying was in the context of the Bare stuff from the 60s that Chet Atkins produced. I just didn't think it worked very well, because the dissonance between the working-class/gritty sort of tunes, and the suburban Pleasantville type production was just too off-putting. And I can't believe that this was an artistic choice - a deliberate effort to add tension to a tune. It was to broaden the audience. That's not bad, but to this "narrow" listener, it stood out like a sore thumb. To me, production is like makeup on women; when it draws attention to itself, then it's not working. (When I discussed Dwight's record, "A Long Way Home," last week, I wasn't criticizing the production -- I don't have any problem with it -- I was just talking about it, raising some questions about why folks made a big deal about Holler's arrangements, but didn't emit a peep about Dwight's.) As for Bobby Bare's intentions, you all are right. It's impossible to project some notion of mine onto a guy whom I've never talked to (though I'd like to have a chat with him). On the other hand, I am curious about how Bare became an inspiration for the outlaw movement of the 70s. After he got through with Chet in the '60s, just what the hell was he rebelling against that caught the attention of Waylon and Billy Joe? Or was all that outlaw rebellion just a profit-motivated pose? I really don't know the answer to those questions, cuz in the 70s I accepted (and loved) all that outlaw stuff without questioning it. That's all for now, though I'll confess that David's analysis of this topic pretty well blew me away. He added some layers of complexity to this idea of heavy arrangement = bad, and stripped-down = good. And a good point, too, about there's more than one way to skin a cat. In the end, how we view "artistic choices" has a lot to do with what sort of environmental filters have been installed in your own head over the years. Growing up in the 60s and 70s, I learned to reject the "suburban sound" -- strings and backup singers -- because that's what my dad always had playing on the car radio. Como, Sinatra, Martin, Davis Jr., etc. Stripped-down rock n roll was the thing, and the same sort of partiality eventually led to my same feelings about blues, jazz and then country. I know I'm biased, then, but on the other hand, I still believe that once you accept your biases, and try to compensate for them, you can credibly look at the production choices, artistic choices, whatever, on something like "Detroit City," and decide, with some objectivity, that the fucking thing sucks wind. Yeah, a joke. Actually, despite my problems with the Bare/Atkins stuff, I still like to listen to it, because the songs are so damn great and so is Bare's voice. And, after giving "The Streets of Baltimore" another listen, I'll concede that this one is pretty damn good. All for today (thankfully) -- Terry Smith
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
To me, production is like makeup on women; when it draws attention to itself, then it's not working. Terry Wow!! What a great sentence, do you mind if I steal it? And while I'm not the only one who agrees with its attention-getting flavor concerning 60's.pop.country.com (I'm pretty sure if Buck "approved" with the coin-jingling Nashville Sound he wouldn't have felt compelled to create his own Buckersfield Sound), you have to allow for those moments where individual talent rise above. Some folks' tastes run to Bare or Snow. Mine sure run to Ray Charles and Charlie Rich, two cases where (lip-)glossy production values didn't always hurt their ability to make a soulful artistic country statement. Lance . . .
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
Terry Smith wrote: A few points: Believe it or not, but I never laid down a blanket rejection of "heavy arrangements" -- strings, singers, etc. At least not this year g. and (When I discussed Dwight's record, "A Long Way Home," last week, I wasn't criticizing the production -- I don't have any problem with it -- I was just talking about it, raising some questions about why folks made a big deal about Holler's arrangements, but didn't emit a peep about Dwight's.) Sorry if I remembered what you wrote about that incorrectly Terry. I would almost certainly similarly mis-step in trying to remember the content of a year-old thread, g but I'd say that in retrospect that maybe the reason the arrangements on the MIH record got noticed is that they were new, for me rather jarringly so, for a band I'd seen and loved in a bar setting (thus sans strings) several times. And a year later, while of course I understand and respect Mike's vision in setting that up as he did, I still feel the strings are a distraction rather than an enhancement of those first two songs. (They work great on "Christmas Past") As for Dwight's record, well, I think the strings definitely enhance "These Arms", and CRS syndrome prevents me from remembering others. b.s. n.p. Ex-Husbands
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Terry A. Smith wrote: Nobody's answered my earlier query, vis a vis, if Bobby Bare was thought to be an inspiration for the early Outlaws -- Shaver and Waylon -- then what exactly, if anything, was he thought to be an outlaw from? At what point did he decide to hang his hat with the outlaw movement, or leastways do some things that later outlaws felt mirrored their own feelings of rebellion? Or was it just an outlaw pose, as opposed to a real rebellion. Bobby's always been a fan of songwriters, period. First, folks like Harlan Howard and Mel Tillis, and later, folks like Kris Kristofferson, Billy Joe Shaver, etc. I bet he'd say he was into the Outlaw movement 'cuz they just happened to be writin' some of the best country songs of that era -- in fact, he *did* say somethin' like that to me last week.--don
RE: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
At 02:41 PM 2/24/99 -0500, Jon wrote: Yes, thinking about how to sell records shapes the making of them, but it generally does so in a more imprecise way; when you get in the studio, you want to make the best record you can given existing constraints, whether that's the lack of a piece of equipment you'd like to use, or the recognition that if you don't come up with something that's going to sell, you're not going to get another chance. Back in the day this last item was especially powerful, I'd guess. You know, this whole contemporary ability for an artist to deliberately make an uncommericial record (I don't WANT lots of people to hear my records, and I sure as hell don't want a lot of people to LIKE them!) is, in the main, a pretty recent option. Punk? Post punk? Whatever. Bobby Bare, for all practical purposes, even assuming that he didn't like Atkins' production (and I have no reason to believe anything other than that he liked the records he made very much), couldn't have chosen a less radio friendly approach if he'd wanted. Not if he wanted to keep making records or, like, pay his rent. Of course, even with that decision out of the way, there were still an infinite number of artistic choices left to be decided --david cantwell
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
Excerpts from internet.listserv.postcard2: 24-Feb-99 RE: Hyper produced Bobby Bare by David [EMAIL PROTECTED] this whole contemporary ability for an artist to deliberately make an uncommericial record (I don't WANT lots of people to hear my records, and I sure as hell don't want a lot of people to LIKE them!) is, in the main, a pretty recent option. Punk? Post punk? Whatever. You might trace it to avant garde and prog acts in the late 60s (though the Velvet Ungerground certainly tried to sell lots of records by being poppier than LaMonte Young, and Jefferson Airplane made singles even as they derided the Beatles for being bubblegum), or maybe even free jazz (a lot of indie rock fans dig Sun Ra, late Coltrane, etc., and I suspect some of that appreciation has to do with those artists' uncommercial sensibilities) but I'd argue that obscurity as an argument for artistic credibility in music doesn't pop up in any significant way until you see stadium tours, homogenized radio formats, and multuiplatinum recording artists in the 70s and 80s. Even in the 70s, many punks wanted to be commercially successful but (in the US at least) failed. The Ramones, for example, wanted to be the biggest band in the world (and eventually did a lot of strange things to try to sell records, such as getting Graham Gouldman of 10cc to produce an album), but it didn't happen. I do know that folks like Jello Biafra, Greg Ginn and the like elected to do things another way in the wake of these failures and rather strident antipathy towards commerical success (and established ways of achieving that success) developed from there. I'm not aware of debates about the ethics of "selling out" by signing to a major label being much of an issue before the early 80s, though that might be due to my age than any real historical trends. Carl Z.
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
Terry). In any event, if Bare was looked at as a model by Jennings or others, that's news to me. I'd say that he got put in the outlaw category, to the extent that he did, more because of, er, lifestyle choices, an interest in doing material by some left-of-center writers like Guy Clark and the cultivation of a good-time Charlie, drinkin'n'druggin' persona than because he was unhappy with Chet Atkins' production. This explanation from Jon sounds plausible, as does a similar one from Joe. Jimmy Gutterman's liner notes in the "Best of Bobby Bare" had the stuff about Bare being an influence, etc.,for the Outlaws movement. If I had more time, I'd go look and get the exact wording. Maybe later. With regard to the interplay of commercial and artistic consideration, I think Joe Gracey and David Cantwell have covered that ground pretty well already. "Let's make a hit" isn't the same as saying "let's make some sucky music." Yes, thinking about how to sell records shapes the making of them, but it generally does so in a more imprecise way; when you get in the studio, you want to make the best record you can given existing constraints, whether that's the lack of a piece of equipment you'd like to use, or the recognition that if you don't come up with something that's going to sell, you're not going to get another chance. Such factors shape, but don't control, what gets made. Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] This also makes sense, though I'd add that there's a continuum on this line -- how much do I compromise in order to get listened to -- that's a matter of degree. Some people compromise everything; some less; some don't have to. But you've gotta admit that there's a point that you get to where any more compromise is just going to ruin what you're trying to do. I edit a small-town paper, and try to hold the line against conceding too much territory to the bottom line. At the same time, you can't avoid doing it. The trick is maintaining your own vision, while still paying the rent. Like with anything. On the other hand, this fucking country is full of newspapers that surrendered to the bottom line a long time ago. And I truly believe the same applies across the spectrum of mass media. Where does Bobby Bare come into play? Nowhere. I just didn't like Chet's production on a few of his songs, and stand by my reasons, notwithstanding the looney notion that a rural, working-class tune might work just dandy with the Cleveland Orchestra providing the sonic backdrop, and the Vienna Boys Choir doing the doo-waps. I don't find that a distressing judgment, just common sense. -- Terry Smith
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
Hey Terry, no matter how far down I scrolled on your last post, I couldn't find your usual PS. Did you forget? No one packs more into a PS than you do, and they're usually the most interesting points made by anyone all day. --david cantwell PS: Mike Ireland finished tied for #241 on the Pazz Jop list. Woo hoo! PPS: Shit, if only I'd voted this year, Learning How To Live could've cracked the top two hundred and twenty, and I mean EASY. Oh well...
RE: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
Terry says: This also makes sense, though I'd add that there's a continuum on this line -- how much do I compromise in order to get listened to -- that's a matter of degree. Some people compromise everything; some less; some don't have to. But you've gotta admit that there's a point that you get to where any more compromise is just going to ruin what you're trying to do. I edit a small-town paper, and try to hold the line against conceding too much territory to the bottom line. But making a record isn't the same as editing a newspaper, and it's a lot harder to find the kind of clear choices and increments that you have in editing. "Run this suck-up story or not" isn't the same kind of decision as "let's put a few glockenspiel notes in here." I mean, yeah, there's a continuum of some sort, I guess - I'm not bucking for a namesake rule here g - but it has its own kind of logic and experience. Where does Bobby Bare come into play? Nowhere. I just didn't like Chet's production on a few of his songs, and stand by my reasons, notwithstanding the looney notion that a rural, working-class tune might work just dandy with the Cleveland Orchestra providing the sonic backdrop, and the Vienna Boys Choir doing the doo-waps. I don't find that a distressing judgment, just common sense. Terry, you've got to make up your mind: does the background on these Atkins-produced numbers sound like the Cleveland Symphony and the Vienna Boys Choir or your mom and her bridge club g?Not that those records sound much like any of them, at least to my ear; they *scream* Nashville (or, more precisely, RCA). Besides, what's behind that "work" there? Work for who? You? Me? Bare? Everyone? Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
RE: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
I like a lot of that sappy, pop-glopped production, myself, but I'm not going to argue the point; de gustibus, etc. I will, however, point out to Terry that he managed to get hold of the wrong Bare compilation for his taste; the Essential Bobby Bare, on RCA, unlike the RT comp., includes 5 cuts from Bare's second tenure at RCA, when the production was a little more stripped-down, as well as a number of duplicates from the RT (yeah, I've got 'em both). One of those 5 cuts is, of course, "Daddy What If," so you get a little Bare Jr., too g. And, of course, there's the new Koch compilation, Bare Tracks, which is material from his Columbia years, with production values that are probably a little closer to what you like, Terry. Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
Now, Jon, let's talk. You mean to say that those jingle-singers coming in dooby-doobying, or whatever, in the middle of the working-man's lament, "Detroit City," don't bother you? To my ears, the dissonance between the gritty lyrics and vocals, and the glossy uptown arrangements, is insurmountable. And, yeah, these songs recorded by Bobby Bare were hits, with both country and pop, and were obviously calculated to succeed on those levels. But that's the aesthetic problem -- a producer "managing" a performer's sound to succeed in the market, but in so doing, diluting the tunes into mush. I can't believe that Bare, looking back, hasn't wondered whether he shouldn't have done the songs differently. He probably doesn't wonder too much, because regretting grand success is sort of a useless occupation. But still... But getting back to the earlier point... Isn't there a sound aesthetic argument for arranging "gritty" songs in a "gritty" fashion, and giving urbane lyricizing a glossier finish? Jesus, the way they arranged Miller's Cave, they may as well had Perry Como singing it. -- Terry Smith
RE: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
Now, Jon, let's talk. You mean to say that those jingle-singers coming in dooby-doobying, or whatever, in the middle of the working-man's lament, "Detroit City," don't bother you? Nope. But that's the aesthetic problem -- a producer "managing" a performer's sound to succeed in the market, but in so doing, diluting the tunes into mush. I can't believe that Bare, looking back, hasn't wondered whether he shouldn't have done the songs differently. He probably doesn't wonder too much, because regretting grand success is sort of a useless occupation. True enough, but he might not wonder anyhow. I always like that Charlie Louvin quote about the Christmas album that the Brothers did: "I don't like to brag, but it was as good as anything that Tennessee Ernie Ford ever cut" - and he was referring to Ford's gospel records, not his country boogie stuff. Our perceptions of an artist's strengths and tastes don't always match up with his or hers. But getting back to the earlier point... Isn't there a sound aesthetic argument for arranging "gritty" songs in a "gritty" fashion, and giving urbane lyricizing a glossier finish? Maybe, but I'll reserve judgment until I think it through g. Jesus, the way they arranged Miller's Cave, they may as well had Perry Como singing it. Uh, actually, the arrangement flows pretty directly from Hank Snow's (Bare's is from 1964, Snow's from 1960) except that the chorus is even more up-front on Snow's. Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
Yeah, I bet Bare just sits out there by his pool, wondering where to fly to for dinner that night, and regrets those background singers were on those hit records. It the music Business. He can play those songs as gritty as he wants to 1000 times, and does, but the only way to get those songs to cross over to pop radio was to cut them pop. I bet it didn't hurt any of those writers' feelings to get BMI checks for 50,000 instead of 5,000, too. I don't understand this whole thing, I guess. If a person is a performer in the Music Business, then the idea is to make records that as many people as possible will like. As long as that doesn't involve a moral issue or an aesthetically repugnant one, then this seems like a non-problem to me. The fact that in retrospect those choruses seem corny thirty years later doesn't mean they did then. Gritty country records didn't sell. Pop records did. He wasn't making records for purists, they were for people. Purists were playing high school gyms for $150 a night and Glen Campbell had a network tv show. "Terry A. Smith" wrote: Now, Jon, let's talk. You mean to say that those jingle-singers coming in dooby-doobying, or whatever, in the middle of the working-man's lament, "Detroit City," don't bother you? To my ears, the dissonance between the gritty lyrics and vocals, and the glossy uptown arrangements, is insurmountable. And, yeah, these songs recorded by Bobby Bare were hits, with both country and pop, and were obviously calculated to succeed on those levels. But that's the aesthetic problem -- a producer "managing" a performer's sound to succeed in the market, but in so doing, diluting the tunes into mush. I can't believe that Bare, looking back, hasn't wondered whether he shouldn't have done the songs differently. He probably doesn't wonder too much, because regretting grand success is sort of a useless occupation. But still... But getting back to the earlier point... Isn't there a sound aesthetic argument for arranging "gritty" songs in a "gritty" fashion, and giving urbane lyricizing a glossier finish? Jesus, the way they arranged Miller's Cave, they may as well had Perry Como singing it. -- Terry Smith -- Joe Gracey President-For-Life, Jackalope Records http://www.kimmierhodes.com
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
And another thing My last message ended sort of abruptly, so I forget wherethe hell I was going. I guess I'd just like to know whether you defenders of 60s pop-country, the Nashville Sound, or whatever it was called, have ever heard a song from that era -- or any era -- that was too heavily arranged with background singers, strings, etc? I'd really like to know. I've heard a lot of that stuff that sounds dandy, but also some that doesn't. To my short list of Bobby Bare, I'd add what one of Hank Thompson's later labels did to his best work. -- terry smith, embattled again and enjoying it. Nobody argues much around here any more, and if I've got to martyr myself to the greater good, then fine. With Matt Cook acting like a big fluffy teddy bear, someone's gotta step into the void! g
RE: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
Me again: OK, let's try this again. Pretend you're composing a sound track for a movie about a lonely rural guy from Kentucky or West Virginia, who's living in Detroit making a buck in the auto factories, and who spends a lot of time pining for his old home, and wondering just what the heck he's doing in this big depressing city. Now would you use an arrangement that sounded like it employed some off-duty singers from the Comet commercial being taped in the next studio, or would you use something a bit less jingle-like and glossy? I fet the feeling that Chet shoe-horned everybody into his own poppy world, whether they belonged their or not. [Matt Benz] But Terry, the songs aren't for a movie soundtrack, designed to convey or pull at the emotions of a theatre audience, they were made so that the folks in the auto factories would *want* to hear the songs on the radio. And that sound is what sold records at the time. Bare was working within the system, not rebelling against it. And while I'm not saying that life in a factory is/was just a life of grimness, I can't see how a stark and depressing arrangement would appeal to a factory guy, even if he could identify with the song's theme. No matter the artistic merits of such an arrangement. That's evidently not what Bare was shooting for. While I can sympathize with your arguments over arrangements, I think that the flaw in your case is that you *assume* the artist would do the arrangement you think suits the song best. You suspect that the artist is forced to bend to Atkins musical will, and if Bare had his way, he would of gone for a sparse arrangement. M
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
At 02:54 PM 2/23/99 -0500, Terry wrote: Uh, oh, the big guns are out now. David, Joe and Jon all weighed in, more or less saying that whatever arrangement is chosen is A-OK as long as it sells records. Geez, did I say that? I don't think so. I said a contrast between lyrics and sound is sometimes a valid artistic choice. ps ...I'm talking about artistic choices, not financial calculations. Yeah, me too. g --david cantwell
RE: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
And while I'm not saying that life in a factory is/was just a life of grimness, I can't see how a stark and depressing arrangement would appeal to a factory guy, even if he could identify with the song's theme. No matter the artistic merits of such an arrangement. That's evidently not what Bare was shooting for. Worth mentioning in all this is that "sparce" and "basic" and "plain" are in many ways cuturally (and commercially) contructed choices just like "pop," "lush," and "polished." Seems pretty sketchy to suggest that a stripped-down, bare-bones aesthetic is necessarily a more natural (speaking of cultural constructs) way to express a particular rural (or working class) subject matter than snazzy string arrangements and commercially-associated background singers. BTW, I've been listening this afternoon to the Classic Country channel at spinner.com. In the last hour, they've played Tammy Wynette, the Louvins, Hank Thompson, Grandpa Jones, Merle Haggard, Merle Travis, and a few other gems. They also list the song title, album title and performer for each song they play, which many of these net providers don't do. np: Mel Tillis, Tall Drink of Water
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Terry A. Smith wrote: I fet the feeling that Chet shoe-horned everybody into his own poppy world, whether they belonged their or not. FWIW, Terry, having grown up on that era of country music, I agree. I'm reminded of a wonderful pic on the back of one of Waylon's LPs from that period, showing him and Atkins producing one of Jennings' songs. I can't imagine that it was a candid photo, yet the contrast between Atkins' expression -- intent concentration -- and Jennings' -- morose dejection -- is stark. Years before he recorded the song, he's already aware that Hank didn't do it this way. While I don't doubt the sincerity of the folks who've advocated the arrangement the song got, I wonder if they're defending it at least in small part because it's what they've heard all their lives and they're used to it. Maybe someday they'll build a machine that strips out strings and choruses the way karaoke machines strip out lead vocals and then we'll be able to figure it out. Frankly, even aside from the arrangements per se, I thought his tempo was too fast, too bright for that song. Bob
That overproduced Dwight Yoakam (was Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare)
Since Terry's playing "lightning rod" today:
Terry A. Smith wrote:
My last message ended sort of abruptly, so I forget wherethe hell I was
going. I guess I'd just like to know whether you defenders of 60s
pop-country, the Nashville Sound, or whatever it was called, have ever
heard a song from that era -- or any era -- that was too heavily arranged
with background singers, strings, etc? I'd really like to know. I've heard
a lot of that stuff that sounds dandy, but also some that doesn't. To my
short list of Bobby Bare, I'd add what one of Hank Thompson's later labels
did to his best work.
It's just sort of tangentially related to this thread Terry, but last week you
were seemingly displeased by the "overproduction" on Dwight's A LONG WAY HOME
record. I was listening to it the other day, and it struck me how well done
("overproduced") the tune "These Arms" is. The song starts out a pretty
straight up shuffle, but transforms into a string-laded, soaring knockout.I'm
with you and many anound here, string-phobic to a degree and much preferring a
"stripped-down" approach. But when it's done right, (a value-loaded word to be
sure) like on "These Arms", well, string me up.
What'd you think of the tune?
b.s.
-- terry smith, embattled again and enjoying it. Nobody argues much around
here any more, and if I've got to martyr myself to the greater good, then
fine. With Matt Cook acting like a big fluffy teddy bear, someone's gotta
step into the void! g
You go Terry. I was afraid somebody was gonna start mourning the health of the
list yesterday. g
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
Todd Larson writes: Worth mentioning in all this is that "sparce" and "basic" and "plain" are in many ways cuturally (and commercially) contructed choices just like "pop," "lush," and "polished." Exactly. Seems pretty sketchy to suggest that a stripped-down, bare-bones aesthetic is necessarily a more natural (speaking of cultural constructs) way to express a particular rural (or working class) subject matter than snazzy string arrangements and commercially-associated background singers. Except for the fact that those snazzy string arrangements and (totally unnecessary) background singers were NOT added for artistic reasons, nor were they added to grab the attention of the working class and rural audiences who already listened to country music. In every article/interview I've read about Atkins/Bradley, etc., they've made it very clear that those elements were added for one reason - to make country music more palatable to middle class urban and suburban audiences and by extension to broaden record sales. This tactic obviously met with some financial success (Chet Atkins became a vice president at RCA), provided a lot of work for groups like the Jordanaires and the Anita Kerr Singers, and helped to advance the careers of certain artists (Eddy Arnold, Jim Reeves, etc.), but I'd bet a few other artists (and listeners) were resistant to the idea. Please don't tell me that the "Nashville sound" was some kind of artistic advancement in country music. Jim Nelson
RE: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
Jim Nelson says: Todd Larson writes: Worth mentioning in all this is that "sparce" and "basic" and "plain" are in many ways cuturally (and commercially) contructed choices just like "pop," "lush," and "polished." Exactly. Exactly. Except for the fact that those snazzy string arrangements and (totally unnecessary) background singers were NOT added for artistic reasons, nor were they added to grab the attention of the working class and rural audiences who already listened to country music. In every article/interview I've read about Atkins/Bradley, etc., they've made it very clear that those elements were added for one reason - to make country music more palatable to middle class urban and suburban audiences and by extension to broaden record sales. This tactic obviously met with some financial success (Chet Atkins became a vice president at RCA), provided a lot of work for groups like the Jordanaires and the Anita Kerr Singers, and helped to advance the careers of certain artists (Eddy Arnold, Jim Reeves, etc.), but I'd bet a few other artists (and listeners) were resistant to the idea. Please don't tell me that the "Nashville sound" was some kind of artistic advancement in country music. It was and it wasn't. It was certainly a development, probably inevitable, and popular with a good many members - though as Jim points out, not all - of the country music community, musicians and audience both. But it was only one of a number of sounds at the time, just as there are a variety of country and country-related sounds today. And in the early 1950s, too. In any event, as I read interviews with Atkins, et.al. (there's an excellent roundtable of studio musicians in a recent JCM that's relevant here), the reason given above needs to be qualified on several grounds. I don't think Atkins or many of the other folks involved would agree that they had sacrificed musical quality to broaden record sales, which is where the value jdugment comes in - and, I think, that's why so many of these guys express a genuine fondness for what they've done that others have thought was too sappy (e.g., Ray Price). And I also think that it wasn't only, or simply a matter of appealing to new (middle class, urban, suburban) audiences; it was also a matter of changing in response to changing tastes and needs among members of the core audience - who were, after all, among those becoming more urban and suburban if not more middle class, whatever that means. Musically speaking, it's akin to the phenomenon of the honky-tonk driven electrification of the 40s and 50s, the point being that it was also driven by commercial considerations. Pointing out those considerations doesn't by itself negate observations about the aesthetic ones. Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
David's point about context sounds fuckin' cool: I heard a panel discussion on record production on the radio this weekend that included Niles Rogers, the fuckin'-cool-sounding producer-guitar player from Chic and, of course, of David Bowie's least-twee, funniest album, Let's Dance. (The great final flameout of his artistic relevance.) One of the points made was that a producer is like a film director - not someone making a soundtrack but someone *making the film* by assembling the creative elements into a coherent package. And it seems to me that a lot of arrangement choices are the aural equivalent of montage. Great montage includes, for one thing, the awareness that cliches (eg., screaming to indicate fear, minor chords to indicate sadness, darkness to indicate menace, spare instrumentation to indicate grit) are a trap. You're unlikely to create something striking and original because you're telling people what they already know - whereas horror in full daylight might be more horrifying, whereas happy songs in minor keys (which is a tradition in many parts of the world) might be more evocative, whereas lush instrumentation may convey a sense of suffocating self-awareness... (Of course, the cliches used carefully might also be original and striking but that seems an even more daunting challenge doesn't it?) The other important element in montage of course, is montage itself. That is, as Eisenstein realized (based I recall on psychological studies), that people will read values into neutral images depending what precedes and follows. So you can cut from a crying baby to a woman seated at a table with a blank expression, and the audience will guess she's a mother at wit's end; or you can cut from Marcello Mastrianni opening a bottle of wine to a woman seated at a table and people will assume she's rapt with anticipation for her lover. This is just an analogy to support what David's saying about inherent meaning and artistic choice - that putting strings on something isn't always sweetening, that a slow slide down a steel guitar is a prism we see the song through, not a dictator of a particular emotive content. (I can accept that through tradition and perhaps even inherent musical wiring we're *likely* to hear these things one way or another, but like David I'm highly suspicious of literal equivalences.) Though that's not to say that some countrypolitan music didn't get the shit produced out of it, just like some spare music sounds wobbly and flat. In art how you use the tool matters at least as much as the tool itself, McLuhanism be ... well, not damned, but at least somewhat modified. Carl W.
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
At 5:10 PM -0600 on 2/23/99, David Cantwell served me up the perfect opening: I don't think anyone told you this. I can't imagine anyone on this list, in fact, ever telling anyone this, not even me g. But: Please don't tell me that the Nashville Sound was some kind of artistic decline in country music, either. --david cantwell I think you're both right. The Nashville Sound has little to do with country music. It was a way for country musicians to stay employed. But they weren't making country music. It was just *marketed* as country music. Bob, feeling like it's the good old days around here
Re: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
At 07:52 PM 2/23/99 -0600, Bob, who is too smart to be anything to but joking here, wrote: I think you're both right. The Nashville Sound has little to do with country music. It was a way for country musicians to stay employed. But they weren't making country music. It was just *marketed* as country music. The kinda short answer: Most of the musicians, producers, songwriters, and country fans who made and loved those records would, of course, disagree. The very short answer: Puh-lease. --david cantwell PS: And, at any rate, I thought everybody here always said it was *marketed* as POP music. You know, like that outlaw shit... g
